"Eco-friendly" and "sustainable" product claims: an ACCC checklist

Why vague green adjectives are high risk

"Eco-friendly", "sustainable", "green", "planet-friendly", "earth-conscious" — the ACCC's 2023 internet sweep of 247 Australian businesses across eight sectors found that vague and unqualified language was one of the most common reasons claims were flagged as potentially misleading. 57% of the businesses reviewed made claims of concern.¹

Under the Australian Consumer Law, the test isn't whether a word is technically true in some narrow sense. It's whether the conduct, taken as a whole, is likely to mislead the average consumer. Section 18 is a strict-liability provision, and section 29 covers false or misleading representations about the standard, quality or composition of goods.² Neither requires intent.

The ACCC's December 2023 guidance, Making environmental claims: A guide for business, is the regulator's published framework for assessing these claims and the basis for the checklist below.³

The translation: ACCC eight principles → product copy

Distilling the eight principles into a pre-publish checklist for product copy:

1. Is the claim accurate? Can you point to a measured fact behind it (recycled content %, certification ID, kgCO₂-e reduced)?
2. Do you have the evidence on file today? Not "we can get it" — a document, signed off, dated.
3. Is the evidence current? A test result from four years ago for a reformulated product is not evidence of the current product.
4. Does the claim cover the whole product or one part? Say which.
5. Are you comparing to anything? If "30% less plastic", less than what — your previous pack, an industry baseline, a competitor? Disclose the baseline.
6. Is there a condition? ("Recyclable through participating stores", "Compostable in industrial facilities only") — put it next to the claim, not in a footer.
7. Is the wording one a regular consumer would read the same way you do? If the meaning relies on a specialist definition, explain it.
8. Are the visuals consistent with the text? Decorative leaves, green ticks and look-alike trust marks shouldn't imply third-party certification you don't hold.
9. Does the claim cover scope 1 only, or scope 1 + 2 + material scope 3? For any climate-adjacent claim, scope matters.
10. Is the claim about today or about a future target? Don't state forward-looking goals in the present tense.
11. If you rely on certification, is the certificate current and the licence in good standing? Display the certificate number where reasonable.
12. Have you kept a dated, version-controlled record of the wording with the evidence? If a regulator asks two years later, you'll need it.³

Before-and-after: ordinary product copy

Before: high risk

"Our eco-friendly, sustainable skincare range is better for you and the planet."

Three vague terms, no evidence, no scope, decorative virtue. Principles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

After: lower risk, same intent

"Our skincare range is formulated without sulfates or parabens. Bottles are 100% post-consumer recycled PET (the lid is not recycled content). The bottle is Recyclable in kerbside; the lid is Conditionally Recyclable — please replace it on the bottle before recycling."

Each clause is verifiable. Scope is named (bottle vs lid). The condition is next to the claim.

When third-party certification helps

Third-party certification is not a free pass, but it shifts a vague adjective into a testable, externally audited claim. Programs commonly referenced for Australian businesses include:

• Climate Active — Australian Government certification for carbon neutral claims for organisations, products, services, events and buildings.⁴
• Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA) — independent ecolabelling against ISO 14024 (Type I).⁵
• B Lab Australia & Aotearoa New Zealand — administers B Corp certification, which is a verified standard for overall social and environmental performance (not a single environmental claim).⁶

When you use a certification mark, the ACCC's principle 7 still applies — make sure the visual treatment reflects what the certification actually covers.³

Substantiation: what to keep on file

1. The exact wording of the claim, dated, with the page or asset it appears on.
2. The evidence document(s), with author and date.
3. The methodology used (if a calculation underpins the claim).
4. Certification details (issuer, certificate number, expiry).
5. A reasonable record of the comparison baseline, if the claim is comparative.
6. A diary note of when the claim is due for re-review.

Where claims are reviewed and either kept, qualified or removed, keep the rationale. If the ACCC opens an enquiry, demonstrating a deliberate review process is materially better than reconstructing one after the fact.

Where to go from here

A useful starting point: take the highest-traffic pages on your site (homepage, best-selling product pages, About / sustainability pages, footer) and run every environmental claim against the 12 questions above.

If you'd like a structured second pair of eyes, that's what our website assessment does — every flagged claim comes back with a suggested rewrite and a reference to the ACCC principle it engages.

Related reading: What is greenwashing?, the ACCC's eight principles, and our list of Australian enforcement examples.